Thank you.Okay. And this is...Audience: October 31st.Saint Hill Special Briefing Course, October 31st, 1961.All right. Now, you have come to grips with clearing since I've talked toyou last in a very definite and broad way and I want you to do this withyour pc at the very next session before the session is started. Do aDynamic Assessment just for the dynamic. Do a Dynamic Assessment for thedynamic before your next session. I simply want a Dynamic Assessment.Now, if you don't know how to do a Dynamic Assessment, that is very simple.You just ask the pc how he feels about the various dynamics and you takethe one that reacts the most or the change of needle pattern from theremaining dynamics and then you tell me which dynamic fell the most on yourPC.Now, there's a few bits and pieces of news with regard to processing. Andyou are posing the problem in a very heavy way of broad, rapid clearing andwe have been using some Class II types of technology in order to clean outcircuits that interpose and so forth in clearing and so on.Now, you know that it would be very difficult to audit anybody unless youhad some Security Checks squared away on this person. I think you willagree with that, with the experience you have had here. Isn't that true?That'd be very - rather difficult, if you never did a Security Check on apc to expect him to go anywhere.Now, you see the goal will disappear rather easily. The terminal willdisappear rather easily, so that assessment becomes rather difficult. Butremember that you are running a goal and a terminal and in view of the factthat you are running a goal and a terminal on the pc, whether you're run -fling it by Prehav Scale or some other process, no matter what you're doingwith the goal or terminal, it can disappear. These two can disappear aseasily during the run as they can disappear during the assessment. So yousee, a goals-terminal run then must be handled with the rudiments in justas you have to have the rudiments in, in order to assess them. Does thatmake good sense to you?All right. Now, those things which are closest to present time often have agreater influence upon the preclear than the whole track. Now, where is theboundary? This life is more important than other lives. In the pc's eyesonly, not from the standpoint of his aberrations. His past lives have fargreater aberrative value because of course, they're more hidden. But in thepc's eyes, this life of course has much greater importance than any pastlife. So you have at once a situation where the person who is sitting therebeing processed by you is completely convinced that anything that is wrongwith him has happened to him in this lifetime. Well, this is one of thethings that's wrong with him: that he considers that he could get thisaberrated in just a half a century or less.You see now, that's silly. There's really nothing happened to anybody inthis lifetime compared to what has happened to them over thousands andthousands of lifetimes, you see. So you're processing somebody who believesthat this lifetime is more important than past lifetimes, when in actualfact this lifetime is not at all important as far as auditing is concerned.As far as the basic seat of aberration, as far as his reactive bank isconcerned, it all has its fundamentals in his past track before thislifetime ever began.All right. Now, let's take that a little bit further. What has happened inthe last twenty-four hours is more important to him than has happened inthe last month. Let's just look at that again.Now, of course, what has happened to him in the last twenty-four hours isnot more important to him than has happened in the last month. But the pcthinks it is. Well, here we go again. You see, it's the same equationworking out now in a little more finite piece of time.All right. According to the pc's viewpoint, what has happened to him in thesession is more important than what has happened to him in the day. Let'sget it down - you know, not this lifetime - past lives, but let's move itdown to now, to this day is more important than this month. Therefore, tothe pc, what has happened in the vicinity - in the immediate vicinity ofthis auditing session or in it is more important than what has happened inthis day. That's what the pc thinks.So of course, you get a tremendous reaction on the part of the pc from anARC break and he thinks this is the thing. Right now this is what is wrongwith him. It isn't what is wrong with him at all. It's probably thosefifteen thousand prisoners he had executed way back when, you see. And hemade them sit in a chair, you see - he made them sit in a chair and heexecuted them with electrodes which look remarkably like E-Meter cans.Something on this order, don't you see.So he has an ARC break and he will tell you it is the ARC break which isholding up his auditing, when as a matter of fact it's the fifteen thousandprisoners. But because of this value, you cannot audit across the top ofthe ARC break easily. You can't do it because his mind is fixated on themoment of time nearest to present time. He fixates on this superficiallyand analytically. So that has to be pulled before you can get to anythingelse.And it's something on the order of a little tiny gate made out of strips offlimsy tin or bits of Dennison crepe paper and the pc says, "This huge,enormous, iron gate, which is spiked, counterbalanced and which weighsseventy-five million tons, called an ARC break, is the gate that isinterposed between me and getting on in this session." See, that's what hesays; that's what he thinks. All right. It isn't true. It isn't true.This ARC break, actually, as far as his future life is concerned, is madeout of Dennison crepe paper. But it looks awfully big. Now, as this ARCbreak floats back into the past, gradually drifts back into the past, itgets to be yesterday's session, it is not so important you see. It gets tobe last month's session, no great value. It gets to be last year's session,well, you have to dig like mad to find it.Well, why is this? Because of progression of time. The analytical mindfixes closest to all of the havingness. You've got all this havingnessaround here, you see. Present time has got all the havingness in it.Therefore, those things which are closest to the havingness are, of coursemore valid than those things which aren't close to the havingness. He nolonger has Camelot, see. But he does have modern England.So what happens close to modern England, of course, that's close to thehavingness, so that's fine, you see. But Camelot, he never can get thatback; that's gone. Of course, it really has no value as he looks at it. Ithas great aberrative value, but it has no analytical value.So there is this basic disagreement always occurring in an auditingsession. What is wrong with the pc is in the yester-lives and what the pcsays is wrong with him is right here and now. Now, if you treat what iswrong with him right here and now with bulldozers and heavy axes anddynamite, as though the gate which is closed in your face is made out ofiron, is of enormous tonnage, is a tremendous barrier - if you treat it inthis fashion, if you slug away at it as though it is iron - the pc willthink so, too.You can validate the pc into out-rudiments. You can work on him and youvery often will be right, but in the process of working on him too hard,you can actually blow rudiments out.You start removing rudiments ineptly, you start slugging them around andyou get the PT problem out and the ARC break in. And then you get the roomout because it's the havingness around which the bad incident occurred,don't you see? And the room goes out and of course withhold goes in. But bythis time you've cleaned up the PT problem and the ARC break, but now youhave the room out and the withholds are out.Now, if we were to go back over the rudiments again and check them, wewould find this to be the case, but in order to get on with it and have anorderly progress of rudiments, we run, of course, the rudimentsconsecutively and never cross them again. So we don't notice this otherpoint. An auditor has to judge this way. He has to make a judgment. He hasto say, "Is it going to do more damage to get the rudiments in than toaudit with them out?" Now, that is sort of a - sort of a wild one becauseit's up against this perfection: is that the best auditing and the bestgains always occur against rudiments in. And a goals run is very, verydifficult to achieve with rudiments out.All right. That's - that's the ideal, isn't it? The ideal is all rudimentsin during the entirety of the run, right? Now, how about crudely puttingthe rudiments in? You can actually put the rudiments in with such ardor,you can attack this gate the pc has got closed against auditing in his bankwith such ferocity, with such battering rams, with bulldozers and dynamiteand so forth, that he becomes utterly convinced one way or the other thatthe rudiments are way out and that it's all a pretty hopeless proposition.And you throw the rudiments further out than you throw them in.Can a condition exist whereby the handling of rudiments worsen the run? Cana condition so exist? Yes. And this is the discovery which we make here andit's an interesting discovery. There are two or three I will detail to youhere.And that is that any auditing of a terminal other than the goals terminalof the pc can increase the density of the bank and the resistance of thepreclear. It doesn't happen a hundred percent, but it happens enough tomake one very wary.Any auditing of a terminal which is not the goals terminal of the preclearcan result in difficulties. Tone arm rises; it gets sticky; it goes up; thepc gets very uncomfortable; the pc becomes very ARC breaky; the pc getsvery, very upset; the rudiments are very, very hard to keep in. Why? Why?Because in not auditing his goal and his goals terminal, you are of courseliable to be auditing other terminals and these increase the density of thebank. So that the pc becomes more ARC breaky by auditing certain rudimentsthan if you left them alone. See how this could be? It's one of these - oneof these horrors. It's one of these super-impasses. It's one that requiresjudgment on the part of the auditor.Well, I'll give you an idea. The pc's goals terminal is "a willow wand."Let's take something nobody has for sure and so the pc runs a willow wandand you can do all sorts of weird things with this willow wand. You can runconcepts on it and brackets on it and you can run it backwards and upsidedown and nothing very grim happens on the willow wand, see? This can run,you see.But in the rudiments, he has a present time problem with his boss. So wesay, Well, get an idea now of getting even with your boss; get an idea ofyour boss getting even with you. Thank you. That's fine. Get an idea ofgetting even with your boss, your boss getting even.. ." We're auditing thePT problem, you see. And we're going to clear up "boss." The boss is not awillow wand. And the harder we try to get it in, the less it goes in,because the pc's attention is distracted off of his goals terminal everytime we say the word boss. He goes flink, boom. "Boss, boss, boss. Wow!Boss. Well, us willow wands. . ." See? So off it goes and the bank getsstiffer, heavier.All right. We're going to have an ARC break. We're going to run this ARCbreak in, see. This is going to be real good. Well, the person has an ARCbreak with the auditor and has had ARC breaks with past auditors and we'reall set now. And we'll say well, "What has an auditor failed to do? Andwhat have you not been able to say to an auditor?" And we go on this way,and we go on and we go on and we go on. And every time we say the wordauditor, the pc's bank says, "Well, us willow wands. . ." No thank you. Hisattention is being pulled out of session, out of session, out of session,out of session. Don't you see? So the ARC break eventually disappearswithout the tone arm going down. You've stiffened the bank up, don't yousee?Now we had it stiffened up on the PTP. Now it gets stiffer on the ARCbreak. And now you say, "Do you have any withholds from me? Me over here,see. Me. Me. Me. You know? Me. Me. Me. You know? Withholds from me. Me.Me."And all of a sudden - all of a sudden, "Us willow wands. . ." And the bankagain doesn't go down. Nothing deflates here; nothing happens. So having"gotten the rudiments in" (quote) (unquote), in this particular instance,all we have succeeded in doing is getting a non-registry of the meter bystiffening the bank up past registry. You see how this could happen?Well, it's happened here lately to several cases. I've been steering youalong the line, I've been steering you close to the edge in a few placesand out of the last week-or-so's auditing, these facts have emerged: thatsome of the cases present in the last week or so being audited - a very fewof them, only something on the order of about 20 percent, but that's goodenough - would have done much better, thank you, if the auditor had nevertouched a rudiment. Because the auditor was getting them in by attractingthe pc's attention violently off the goals terminal with a resultant riseof tone arm.In other words, the rudiments weren't being put in; the meter was sudden -just being beaten into non-registry. So finally all rudiments are out butnot registering and rudiments can go out and not register if the tone armis very high and the needle is very sticky. You should realize that as partof your auditing kit.Try it sometime. Assess somebody very carefully and get a terminal. Let'ssay it's "a hyperbolid," see. And then very carefully for a very long timein auditing, avoid ever letting him put his attention on a hyperbolid andvery carefully put his attention on everything else but a hyperbolid. Andyou'll wind up at the end of this particular run with about 20 percent orsomething like that of the cases so run with a high tone arm and a stickyneedle. The rudiments have just all been violently driven out.How have they been driven out? Well, the pc is actually experiencing ascarcity of auditing. That's one of the reasons. He feels he isn't beingaudited. So that would be one reason. And the other more important reasonis the person's terminal is not getting the attention it thinks itdeserves, which is total attention. You see how this could all add up thento a miserable sort of a situation?So if, in the process of putting rudiments in, the tone arm starts up, it'sa very good thing to look very pleased as though you've just gotten therudiments all in beautifully, give two more questions, give the rest of therudiments rapidly and look very pleased - needle falls off the pin onwithholds, you get the idea - look very pleased about it all. Even heave asigh of relief if you want to make a liar out of yourself, but the sigh ofrelief would actually amount to the fact that you've actually gotten himout of that particular embayed position without running him agroundcompletely. He's just partially aground. And then run whatever you'rerunning and for heaven's sakes make sure that what you're running hassomething to do with the goal or the terminal of the pc. And his bank willsoften right up and it'll all come out all right.But if you keep at it - if you keep at it, pound, pound, pound, pound,pound, pound, pound, pound - and that tone arm isn't coming down and theneedle is getting too stiff to read, you're just heading for trouble. Youcan just park the case just like that.Oh, I'm - can tell you all this because it has been subjected toconsiderable test and nobody here was being used as a guinea pig. It justturned up as a gratuitous fact. It just turned up and took off its hat andsaid, "I am a sturgeon." And we said, "Well, how do you do?" That's thetruth of it.Now, terminals arrived at through a Dynamic Assessment, a full DynamicAssessment, were apparently not too far off goals terminals, so old DynamicAssessment runs were not too bad, but any vast concentration on the casewhere the auditor simply picks the terminal out of midair and makes thecase concentrate on it, is liable to bring about in enough percentage ofcases to make you worry about it on all cases - any time it gets up above20 percent, well, it's liable to happen to you at any time, so just avoidit. We recognize clearly that the goal and terminal of the pc, properlyrun, will get the case further than any other single process.Now - remember now, as we say this, that rudiments are just a process. Theyare four or five processes. That's what rudiments are. They are justprocesses.Now, if those processes take the pc's attention off his goal or terminal totoo great an extent, you suffer from this other liability. The rudimentswill go out faster than they go in and that's what I've been talking about.On such a case, you will get further, actually, by auditing with therudiments out rather than audit with the rudiments further out.Now, it isn't true that a case makes no gain with the rudiments out. Thegain is very tiny. There is some gain with the rudiments out. It is veryslow. It's quite microscopic. But it is a gain. It is a gain. And thatlittle, tiny gain of course, is better than a negative gain, see. It'd bebetter to audit toward a tiny gain than to a thoroughly messed-up case,see. The better choice.Now this is no invitation to assess people with the rudiments out. It is noinvitation to run people with the rudiments out. I'm just pointing out toyou that under these circumstances that when assessment is driving the tonearm up - pardon me, when rudiments for assessment just drive the tone armup and make the needle sluggish, when rudiments for the original runs onthe case just drive the tone arm up and make the needle sluggish, you'remuch better off saying, "Well, how do you feel about the room? Good. Is itall right if I audit you? Fine. Do we have any ARC break? Good. Do you haveany withholds? Oh, fine. Good, so forth. Oh, yeah, present time problem.You haven't - you don't have any present time problem. Oh, that's good.That's fine. Fine. That's wonderful. All right. Now we're going to run thisprocess, and it has to do with a willow wand."Or in assessment - in assessment there is another dodge. You pick up the pcwhen the rudiments are most likely to be in and assess him at those timeswhen the rudiments are likely to be in and don't assess him during timeswhen they are likely to be out. Doesn't that sound weird? You say to thepc, "How do you feel?"And the pc says, "Oh, I dunno. I'm not too good," and so forth.And you say, "Well, we'll have a session tomorrow."You see? You actually could do this. You recognize that you could do this.You say, "Well, what time of the day do you feel best?"And the fellow says, "I feel pretty good around three o'clock, usually -afternoons." He thinks this over, "Well, yeah, usually, afternoons I feelpretty good. After lunch I feel pretty fine."And you say, "Well, that's fine. That's good. Now, we're going to have ourassessments here. We're going to assess for thirty-five minutes immediatelyafter lunch."That'd be a way to get the rudiments in, wouldn't it? So it wouldn't beimpossible, even if the rudiments appeared to be out, you would getsomeplace this way by picking only times when the pc was in good shape.Now, you're laughing about this now, but you actually will encounter thisin your auditing and I can see that sooner or later you're going to usethis on somebody.Well, why all this? Why did they go out? Well, I should give you this veryimportant datum, this extremely important datum. You understand the datum Ijust gave you as important was that taking the pc's attention off his goalsterminal could result in a stiffening or a massifying or solidifying of thebank as registered on the tone arm and needle of the pc. And, therefore, itis a liability to run any other terminal than his goals terminal.All right. Here's the other one: The pc's goal, if run by itself on atwo-way or more flow, should bring down the tone arm and that is awonderful thing to know. That is a wonderful thing to know.You've got the pc's goal and terminal. You can't get the rudiments in.Everything you're trying to run for some reason or other causes the tonearm just to go higher and causes the needle to be stickier and it goesalong with an ARC breaky pc and you're trying to run the goals terminal,but you don't seem to be getting anyplace at all. You know, on a 5-waybracket or there's something messed up about the command or maybe the levelisn't right or you've overrun a level. This was an old problem in clearing,was overrunning a level and getting the tone arm so high and getting theneedle so stuck, you couldn't reassess.Now, I can give you a method which should, under ordinary circumstances -since I haven't done it to enough people to tell you broadly that it'll doit to all cases - I myself believe at this time that it'll probably, willundoubtedly do it to all cases, but I can't tell you that from actual fact,I can only tell you my observation up to this moment - that running atleast a two-way flow on the exact goal of the pc phrased in some actionwording would cause the Prehav Scale - or stiffening of the bank orrudiments stiffening of the bank to come right off.Quite marvelous. You see a high tone arm - you see a high tone arm, a stickneedle, you don't know what's gone wrong. Your assessments might have beenout on a Prehav Scale. You might have overrun something. It might not havebeen a proper command. You might have been running with the rudiments toofar out. There might have been a level which was left unflat, and then youwent on to another level and this goofed it. There might be something wronghere and you can't quite find out what it is. You apparently have this tofall back on: You can phrase up the pc's goal. You - it's given. You haveto have his goal already. You can phrase it up so that it can be run justas itself and that is all. You just run the goal.It has to be action phrasing, however. You can't just chant. Let's say thepc's goal was "don't want to go home." You can't just say "Don't want to gohome. Home don't want to go," you know. That would not be a proper commandphrasing. You would have to say how, or what, or something like that. "Whatwould you have to do to go home," see, something like that, you see. "Whatwould go - what would wanting to go home involve," some such phrase, butit's better to have it in a two-way flow and you'd say "What would make youwant to go home? What would make another want to go home?" Now there's avery good one, see. "What would make you want to go home? What would makeanother one want to go home?""What would you have to do - ?" - any such phrasing - "How could you go -?" "What would this involve - ?" Any such phrasing woven around, leavingthe goal more or less exactly worded and intact will give you a brand-newlease on life.Now, you can - you can discharge it all down. You get back to where youwere and you've now got a needle that you can assess. You got a pc whoisn't ARC breaky and you now feel happy about the thing and you can go onauditing and find out what is wrong. This is to get him back into the realmof the living. So you see, that's a valuable thing to know.If that fails you, well, you've always got suicide. You could propose thatto the pc. That would solve his problems. "R2-45" by its various - variousother techniques. So don't think that you just have this one technique tofall back on.Now, that's a valuable thing to know, that you can probably desensitize thesituation - that is to say, you can resensitize the meter by running thegoal.The goal run all by itself apparently produces some interesting -interesting phenomena. Apparently, a goal can be run all by itself. Now letme give you a further ramification on this.We find the pc's goal and the pc has a goal of - well, let's say it was,"Under no circumstances to let the auditor have my terminal." Let's justcorn it up, but let's say that that was the pc's goal: "Under nocircumstances to let the auditor have my terminal." Now, of course, you'drecognize clearly in black and white letters of fire that under no God'squantity of expert terminal-finding over the next three weeks were yougoing to have much of a show because your pc is always going to have therudiments out. The pc's always going to have it mucked up one way or theother - obviously, with a goal like that. You see that clearly? "To neverlet an auditor get anywhere near my terminal," or some such goal. That'shis - the lifetime he's - I mean, it's a goal for the last trillion years,see. He knew he was leading up to this lifetime or something so he had hisgoal all set.Well, you could turn around and run it and all you do is run the goal.That's all you've got. You haven't got a terminal. So you just run the goaluntil you can - got the goal kind of tamed down a little bit and you canfind the terminal now. Cute, huh?In fact, this is so good that I don't know that it wouldn't become standardprocedure to run the goal before you looked for the terminal, because it'dbe very fast assessment if you did. I don't know that it would becomestandard procedure, but I'm just giving you warning. Having made adiscovery of this particular magnitude with what you can do with a goal,why, you can be prepared for anything.You can do something with a goal and if I find you can do something with agoal, why, I guarantee you that we will do something more with a goal, yousee.All right, so there is a method of short-circuiting it. Now, I've given youa very weird and corny type of goal: "To never under any circumstances,over my dead body, to let the auditor have my terminal." See? That's verycorny, isn't it. How about a goal like this? How about a goal like this?"To remain totally undiscovered." Well, isn't that the same goal? Isn'tthat the identical goal? Now, how long are you going to sweat over that onebefore you get smart and remember this lecture?I'm going to invite your attention to the pc's goal as indicative of hisbehavior in processing. You look at the pc's goal, I'll predict hisbehavior in processing and I won't be a hair off any time. I've beenlooking down your throats on this now for weeks. Matter of fact, I just - Ionce angled in toward a pc's goal because of his behavior in assessment. Hewas just laughing a minute ago there.I did. I said, "Well, let's - let's sort that out from that angle becausewe couldn't get anything to stay in. Nothing ever would stay in on thisgoal and of course, the thing was practically "Nobody is ever to findanything on me," you see. That was the goal and it was very hard to find.And this pc, by the way, was being assessed, continually, with therudiments wildly out. They were always out.Well, look-a-here. It was after the fact. You've got the goal. So now youcan understand why it was hard to get the assessment. But remember, you'redoing - you're doing the assessment before you've got the goal. You - youdon't have this datum yet, do you? Valuable as the datum would be, to knowthe person - the best way - the most easily - the easiest sessions youwould ever run would be those sessions in which you were trying to find thegoal that you already knew what it was. That'd be a very easy session toconduct.The goal is "To hit the audit - hit an auditor over the head with anE-Meter," you see. And you know that, so every time he reaches over for theE-Meter and so forth, you put his arm back in the chair, and you - there'sno surprise involved with it, don't you see. But we sweat along over thisgoal for a long time and we are considerably annoyed all during theassessment because at the least provocation, the pc picks up the E-Meterand hits us over the head with it and we think this is getting in the roadof the assessment. You might say that the pc sitting there is theassessment. So if we knew it in advance, the pc would never give us anytrouble. But we don't know it in advance.But let's use this idea. We go down a long list of goals on the pc -Routine 3 is just done Routine 3, you understand. There isn't big changesoccurring here. I'm just showing you some of the mechanics back of all this- and we do an assessment. We get our rudiiments in. We get them in verywell. We make sure that a Sec Check has been done on the pc. We make sureeverything is grooved in and everything is very neat and everything is verynice. And we go down and we get the goals list and we get the thing allassessed out and we wind up with the pc's goal. All right, that's the waywe should do it.Is there any way to make it any easier on us? Well, that's for sure.There's ways to make it easier on us. As we look this thing over, we shoulddo a goals list rather relaxedly. We shouldn't attack the pc and extracthis goals list from him something on the order of a highwayman taking thegold off the night mail, see. This is kind of a wrong approach.We can weight this thing up with importance, you see. We can make this soterribly important. We can make it under such strain. We can put so muchattention on these Dennison crepe paper doors of the rudiments, you see,that he begins to think these things are castle high. "Oh, God, nobodycould ever - . Oh, I hope I don't - I hope I don't have a present - I hope- I hope I don't have a present time probllem before this session because,of course, I won't get any place in the session. And we'll have to spendthe whole session on present time problem, and I hope I don't have apresent time problem. And let's see, how can I keep from having an ARCbreak with the auditor. Let's see, if I get an ARC break with the auditor,then the auditor won't be able to find my goal and terminal and - and thesession will be no good. So let's see. I guess no matter what the auditordoes, I won't pay any attention. I think that would be a good idea. Now,let's see, room. Room. Well, that room always makes me nervous, so-so-sothe best thing for me to do is just not look at it, the whole session."See, the pc is helping you out, see. "Ah, now let's see. I have no presenttime problem and I'm not going to say anything much to the auditor or notgoing to hear anything very much that he says and then I'll get no ARCbreak and - and then I won't notice the room, so that'll stay in. And -withholds, withholds. Do I have any withholds? Do I have any withholds atall? Let's see, do I? Do I? Do I? Is there anything I haven't told anybody?Let's see. Let's see now. No, I guess I don't have any withholds, but - buton the other hand - on the other hand, he might find out the first third ofmy life. Somebody might get into that quarter of my life and maybe at thetime of withholds, maybe if I just sort of clench the cans convulsivelywhen he starts asking about withholds, we'll get across that one all right."Now I've got the rudiments in, we will have a session."You'd be surprised what goes on. The pc - pc tries to help you out all hecan. I just ran an assist a little while ago, by the way, on Quentin. Ithad been carefully buried. Nanny had told him it was all better now and hewas now well. And you know, I couldn't get a single somatic out of him?This little kid runs like a - like a baby carriage, you know. He'd fallenout of bed on his head. No somatics? This character? Impossible. Becauseusually all I have to do is say, "Bing, bing, bang, thud. Put yourattention on this, that, boom," and it blows. And that's about the end ofthat. But in this place, no somatic? No somatic? So I trace it back and Ifind out how he's been reassured while he's in a state of near concussionthat "it doesn't hurt now." Somebody's installed a somatic shut-off. So Ihad to search this over, and - it took me a moment or two, and I said,"Well, has anybody said anything about this? You mentioned this toanybody?""No, nobody but so-and-so, and they said it didn't hurt now."And I said, "All right. Well, do you recall when that was and where it was?All right. That's fine. Got that all straightened out. Okay, now let's gothrough this whole thing again." Somatics, you know, bang! Right in there,thud! And he was running.So don't think that I'm saying you don't have to have rudiments in. Herewas a somatic shut-off and here was somebody auditing before me. At themoment of the accident, he had another auditor and he was still - as far asthe accident is concerned, you see - still totally fixated see, on a personthat was supposed to be helping him out at that time. So as long as thatperson was standing there in the incident, the incident was shut off.Well, of course, rudiments are in essence an effort to be the pc's auditor,and if you can become the pc's auditor through putting the rudiments in, ofcourse the pc runs wonderfully. The somatics go on. All kinds of thingshappen; various phenomena occur. Pc goes rapidly through the bank. Therudiments are out; benefits occur less to the degree that the pc doesn'thave an auditor, you see. I mean, it's a direct proportion proposition. Themore he has an auditor, the more confidence he has in an auditor and soforth, why, the more will occur in the session beneficial to the pc. It's adirect proportion, so don't let me discount in your mind the importance ofgetting rudiments in. I've just told you that there are times when it'sbetter to leave them slightly out than to drive them out with clubs.I think we need a new phrase about there. Let's just call them muzzledrudiments. Muzzled rudiments, you know. You say,"Rum-thum-thum-thumthum-thum. All right. Now we're going to run thisprocess." And bang, here goes your session. You see, you've gone throughthe form of Model Session and if one or two questions didn't release theneedle, you leave it alone. You don't run any process on the pc. You woulddo that at times when the tone arm was high and the needle sluggish duringthe last session that you gave the pc.Of course, the pc comes in - of course, any pc of mine comes in with a hightone arm and a sluggish needle and they left the last session with a lowtone arm and a loose needle, I curl my long, nonextant black moustache andI say, "Well, I don't mean to inquire into your private life, but what haveyou been doing?" They usually tell me and the needle goes down thud, see.Needle goes loose. Tone arm goes down. They go into session. Now inessence, however, if they're not going to and if this phenomena is notgoing to occur by reason of everything being out, you - you're better offauditing them with rudiments out than trying to slug the rudiments in.Do you see? That's the only point of judgment I'm trying to make with you.Muzzled rudiments. If you notice that every time you try to get therudiments in the pc becomes more ARC breaky than before, you might decidethat it's a marvelous idea to do, certainly one thing - to sort of muzzledown the rudiments. Toughen up security checking on the pc.You see, that's not a rudiment. Security Checking is Security Checking,see. If he's going to be so chopped up and messed up and ARC breaky, he'sprobably got withholds like crazy, so throw that over into the departmentof Security Checking and if his tone arm and needle are not responding toany process known to man or beast, if you're lucky enough to have his goal,run it. You just run it and the whole thing will soften up. It'll bypasseverything else that's happening to the pc because this is the single, moreimportant thing than present time.You have something more important than present time. So, therefore, itoverrides the top of rudiments and so forth. So is the terminal moreimportant than present time, but less so than the goal. The terminal is notquite as important as the goal. And the goal is the softer road. See, therecan be several terminals to one goal. You can run a terminal flat for thatgoal and then have to find another terminal for that goal. See and maybehave to find another terminal for that goal before you get rid of the goal.But goal? That's just one goal. Zoom! When it's out - when you've got itaudited out, then it is out. And that is it.These are all points of adjudication. What do you do in auditing? And avery finished auditor, an auditor who really knows his business, can handlea pc well, goes on the basis of fundamentals. He sees what is happeningwith the case. He knows what he wants to have happen with the case and hejust throws aside all barriers which interpose on his having that happenwith the case. I gave you a very crude example but a very easilyunderstandable one.Well, all right, I'm trying to give a little boy an assist. No somatics.Well, I don't try to sack into his past life and do this and do that andthe other thing. I just figure out "Well, what - woo-woo. This boy has nosomatics and he should have somatics. And nobody has run this thing. Andmust have been something in the environment at the time." And sure, we finda somatic shut-off. Somatic shut-off. Knock it out. There goes the rest ofit.Would it have ever come out into the clear if I'd just run the process?Yes, yes. I could have run the thing and run the thing and run the thingand all of a sudden he would have remembered the person telling him thisand it would have blown anyhow and I would have come out the other end. Andit would have been the difference between about a two-hour session and afifteen-minute session. The way I did it was a fifteen-minute session. Youcan always cut corners by knowing your business.You understand that an auditor can almost always get there in someknuckleheaded fashion. Skill does just this: It makes a time difference inauditing. It can make an enormous time difference in auditing. It can besomething on the order of five hundred to one. See? It can be five-hundredhours for one hour. See, pc gets this session. Auditor really understandsthis. Gets a good grip on it. Has a little bit of luck. A couple ofhorseshoes in one pocket and a rabbit's foot in the other pocket and someshamrocks stuck in his lapel. Just hits it, you know. Bing! And he said,"Is it so-and-so?" And the pc says, "Yes, it's so-and-so." And he doesso-and-so. And zoom and that's it. And that clears all that up and that'sthe end of that.And somebody else runs the CCHs and then follows through CCHs and he runs aPresent Time Problem Intensive one way or the other and gets that out ofthe road. He runs all existing Security Checks, fifteen Security Checksmore that he himself has thought up and so on. And somewhere in this massof stuff, why, he hits the exact thing that the pc was on. And it happensmore or less at that point because the pc is softened up. You get the idea?You could get there. You can always get there, you know, but riding whattortoise sometimes.Now, it isn't just basically that you always have to get there faster. As amatter of fact, getting there swiftly is sometimes an economic liabilityand in a society of this particular character, getting there too fast andgetting there too slow can be looked on alike as undesirable. They wouldhave you strung up in short order, I'm afraid, if you went out on the roadsand you saw somebody sick and you said, "God bless you, my son," and it -he instantly was well. And you looked around throwing these God-blesses inall directions and so on. Well, they'd say "That fellow down there inJudea. It's about time we hang somebody else, man." They'd hang you, that'sfor sure.Furthermore, it'd be economically very difficult. Negotiations - economicnegotiations before you said "God bless you," you see, would take more timethan the cure and this would all be rather silly. And of course, I'm jokingnow about this, but the economics of the situation do influence the lengthof time in auditing. I just don't want them to influence the length of timein auditing the way they did in psychoanalysis. Almost the total endproduct of psychoanalysis is "how long can you get somebody to beanalyzed." Hasn't anything to do with what you do with the person inanalysis. It's how long can you go. Because the longer it goes, the betteryour paycheck is and the more weeks you're sure of it. So there's anoptimum that the society will accept in terms of speed, economically.Now of course, I'm just joking on that point, but there is another point:it's how much change can a pc accept over what period of time and you juststart talking to this pc you're having too hard a time with on the subjectof Clear and you're liable to find out that it's just a totallyunacceptable proposition because he looks on it as a rapid proposition. Andyou talk to him about rapid clearing, he's all set to tell you that hewants to be cleared this session.Well, that's interesting because you'll see some pcs putting it downsession after session after session that the session goal they put down isto be Clear. Well, that's dandy. We're awfully glad they put that down as asession goal. Nobody's criticizing it. Wouldn't say anything about itexcept for this: It should occur to you as the auditor once in a while notto question the goal, but to discuss the subject with the pc with your eyeon the needle.Now, you shouldn't take up the pc's goals too arduously as did he reachthem or didn't he and his goals are his goals, and they are his goals forthe session. And you take up the session's goals at session end and findout if he made them or didn't make them. But if all the pc ever said was"to be Clear," "to be Clear," "to be Clear," "to be Clear," we wouldn'tquestion the goal, but sooner or later we'd find out what was he talkingabout. What was he talking about?And you'll find some tremendous variability. They - he doesn't really knowwhat he's talking about. Now, not that you would do this in a session -very often he definitely does know what he's talking about - but, not thatyou would do this in a session but you could do this in a session: Youcould say, "All right. This session we are going to try to make this goalof yours 'to be Clear.' And we're going to make it in this session." Andthis, of course, to somebody that's reading at 6.5 and stuck up and soforth.It won't necessarily violate his reality, but it'll violate hisspeed-of-progress factor. The idea of sitting down in this session in onecondition and coming out at the other condition without any time allowedfor adjustment, healing, feeling whether or not the water is cold, doingall of these things, you see - and you're liable to get - you're justliable to shake up the meter just - just horribly. I'm not saying youshould do that. I'm just saying the consequence of doing it on some pcs whohave this as a goal. Speed. Speed. The speed with which you clear the pc issometimes unacceptable to the pc and you very often will find a pc plantinghis heels in. But what has got its heels in? And this is very important toyou. His goal has got its heels in. That's what's got its heels in.Examine a case from the aspect of its goal. Examine the goal from itsaspect - from the aspect of what dynamic it is an overt against and you'llfind out something about pcs. You'll find out how a pc got a goal in thissolid. He had this goal. It was a perfectly honest goal - perhaps. And - itwas - it was a perfectly good goal and he went along, but nobody wantedthis goal because it didn't fit with certain dynamics. And they invalidatedit and he reasserted it and they invalidated it and he reasserted it. Andthey invalidated it and he reasserted it, and they invalidated it and hedidn't assert it very much. And then he reasserted it and then they reallyinvalidated it. And after that, he skipped it and it kind of crops up nowand then. He thinks about it, you know, sort of, "Well, sort of afairy-tale thing. I mean, nobody really believes in it, you know. Itdoesn't amount to much - just something you..."And when you first pick it up, you'll find out it behaves like an overt. Apc's goal, even though it is a goal - and it is a perfectly honest goal -nevertheless behaves like an overt. And you can run it as an overt. Andthat's why it works to run it two ways. It's running overts. It's the mostremarkable thing you ever cared to run into.All right. Let's take the goal "to climb a mountain." Highly unlikely goalon some pc, but we will take it that way. "To climb a mountain." All right."To climb a mountain." Very good. And you say - you can't figure out thatthis would do anything to anything very much. And you say, "What would thisdo to a group?" And by golly, the pc will come out with a long chain ofoverts. It is an overt against a group to climb a mountain. You wouldn'tthink so at first glance, but of course the goal wouldn't be stuck to thisdegree if it hadn't been invalidated, if it hadn't been an overt. See, itwas treated as an overt, so it becomes one.Naturally, it's been objected to so often that it's easily invalidated andthis is how a goal or terminal goes out on the pc. Any goal that was not amass goal of the race or line of the pc - but not - you know, just actuallynot an axiom; any goal that isn't an axiom - is out of agreement to somedegree and therefore has been invalidated very often by other members ofthe groups with which the pc has been associated, has been invalidated onother dynamics and having been invalidated on other dynamics becomes afruitful source of invalidation.Now he's used it to invalidate eventually and people invalidate it, so yousay to this pc - you're doing a goals assessment on the pc - and you say,"To climb a mountain. To climb a mountain. Climb a mountain. Did you evergo in for mountain climbing?"And the pc says, "Oh, huh?"And you say, "Well, your goal here 'to climb a mountain,' did you ever goin for any mountain climbing?"And the pc says, "Well, no, not particularly. I thought it'd be very niceto climb a mountain sometimes."And you say, "Well, don't you find mountain climbing awfully tiring? Ah,it's not being done much these days, you know. Did you know that - did youknow that airplanes now fly much higher than Everest? Did you know that?"And you say, "Let's take up this goal now 'to climb a mountain.'" Itdoesn't register.Now we get the rudiments in and get the ARC break off and the thingregisters again. Now, what's - what's the phenomena connected with this?It's just that the goal has been invalidated very often and has been usedfor the purpose of invalidation of certain groups of people and so is afruitful source of invalidation. And you just sort of breathe on this goallightly, you see, and it apparently folds up.Actually, this is a misnomer. It simply disappears from view and itdisappears from consciousness, but it sure doesn't disappear from thereactive bank. It's in there plowing and chewing and mashing, going on likemad, you see, down underneath the cover, but you can actually - can get itoff of the meter by invalidation.And because the terminal is an outgrowth of the goal, it of course could besimilarly invalidated. Well, these things are easily submerged. So therudiments go out; there disappears the goal and terminal. You could goforever. Actually, we have. You can pull a thousand, fifteen-hundred goalsor terminals off of a pc when the original ones are invalidated? Mm.Oh, I'll tell you one. An HGC didn't take the pc's goals list. Pclaboriously writes out a goals list, so an HGC didn't take the pc's goalslist, but wrote the pc a new goals list down for the pc, taking it off bythe meter. That was it; that was enough. I don't know how long theyassessed and it wasn't length in that particular instance. They did acomplete misassessment. The goal they found couldn't possibly have stayedin. The terminal they found couldn't possibly have stayed in. They ran it.They got nowhere. It was a complete mess.Fortunately, we found the list. We found the list and found out about thisand got this straight and so forth and it was just a matter of, I don'tknow, five, six hours. Just five or six hours. There it was. The pc's goaloccurred on the original, handwritten, personally written list, but didn'toccur on later lists. That any goal had been invalidated, you see - by notaccepting just the pc's list of goals, the goal - the pc's goaldisappeared. It disappeared because when the pc was asked to list the goalsagain, she didn't list it. She omitted her goal. Interesting, isn't it?Ha-ha-ha, boy, I'll tell you. Finding goals and terminals is walking atightrope.Now, are there any processes that you can run - well, I've given you one.There's this goals process. That's very good. Several brackets of the goalsprocess; two brackets or something like that. It's marvelous. But theremust be some other processes. Must be some other processes that you canrun. Oh, yeah, well there's a hatful of them. I've just done a safety tablewhich I think you already have. Should have been issued. It was lastThursday's bulletin. If it hasn't been issued to class, it should be. Butit's a safety table. Safe processes. That's all.Now, this particular problem is what can you audit and it lays down thisrule. I have gotten enough information now so that I can write up aProblems Intensive and will talk and give a comprehensive lecture on thesubject of everything about a Problems Intensive - all the form and soforth. I'm redoing the form and so on.But it follows like this: that you can always ask a generalized SecurityCheck question. Contains the word you and it contains the word someone oranyone. You can always ask that type of question. You, someone, anyone. Youknow? "Have you ever robbed a bank?" Well, fine. Not much of a terminal, abank. "Have you ever - have you ever sunk any boats?" These are not as gooda Security Check question as "Have you ever robbed anything? Have you eversunk anything?" See?The further you can get the question away from a particularized or evenwhat we used to call a generalized terminal, why, the better off you are.You say, "Has there been any commotion before that problem? Was there anycommotion before you had that problem? When did you have that problem?Well, what activity was going on then?" See?You didn't name anybody. You don't direct the pc's attention directly ontopast terminals if you can possibly help it. Now, understand you can getaway with it. You can get away with quite a bit of this. I'm just showingyou that it's a poor practice and you should realize that it hasliabilities and it has limitations. So it is a better Security Checkquestion - "Have you ever robbed?" What's the - where's the rest of it?Well, just leave that to the pc's imagination. His mind will go over ontosomething, see? See, that - I'm just doing the reductio ad absurdum,actually. This is being too careful, see."Have you ever robbed?"The pc says, "Well, there's the next.. ." You know, his mind connects onthe proper terminal or whatever he has robbed, you see.All right. This - that - that's nearly perfect, but too extreme. "Have youever robbed anything?" or "Have you ever robbed anyone?" Ah, that's good.See, yeah, that's all right. That's quite acceptable. You can play thataround and do a lot with this."Have you ever robbed your father?" Oh, no, that is utterly and completelyunacceptable as a Security Check question. I finally got all of the barsdown now and got this thing shaken out and seen where it lives and I knowall about this thing and that is just not acceptable, as a Security Checkquestion. You understand what I mean?What does this amount to? "Have you ever robbed your Father? Thank you.Have you ever robbed your Father? Thank you. Have you ever robbed yourFather? Thank you. Have you ever robbed your Father? Thank you. Have youever robbed your Father? Thank you. Have you ever robbed your Father? Thankyou."Well, what's happening here? Attention on terminal, Father. Attention onterminal, Father. Attention on terminal, Father. Attention on terminal,Father. This would be a little bit safer but also a little bit corny: "Haveyou ever robbed any member of your family?" See? At least his attention canflick around without you crushing it down against Father. He'd be betteroff. That would be the better thing to do.You understand that you've got wide latitude here and you can get away withan awful lot. I'm just giving you the perfections of it. That's all. I'mbeing pedantic, in the extreme. You can run through a Security Checkquestion, you can actually assess lists of people and you can find out whodrops the most and run practically a repetitive command on the person ofwhat they've done to them. You can do all this sort of thing and you justget away with it left and right - as long as it's a Security Check becauseO/W is the only thing that'll run against a terminal. It's the O/W thatexcuses it.You can always run Overt - Withhold as long as overts and withholds exist.Don't run Overt - Withhold where no overts or withholds exist. That soundsawfully mechanically something, but why - why do I add the additionalprovision? Well, this is strictly and entirely because if no overts andwithholds exist, you're still putting the person's attention on anotherterminal, than the person's goals terminal. And you're going to get somekind of a repercussion.Therefore, when a pc runs out of overts and withholds against a certainperson in the past, he would get ARC breaky. Why? Did you ever have a pc dothis? "Yeah, but they're - but I don't have any more. I didn't do anythingmore. I - I - mean I have no - I - uh..."He's sensible now that his attention is being crowded newly over onto thatterminal. You got it washed up before, but now newly you're crowding itonto that terminal. That's a bad show.So Security Checking is the best way to run Overt - Withhold and ageneralized sort of question is - having to do with the action, not theterminal - is much better than any other type question. And you get somesloppy, pronoun type of terminal - well, that's not, not perfect, but it'squite acceptable. "Have you ever robbed anyone?"Now, you understand that you can throw questions in along the line, but youshould realize, actually, that you are just to some degree getting awaywith something. It's a violation of this other, so you are - you're -you're just getting away with something.All right. You take prior confusion. We'll take up prior confusion inanother lecture and beat it to death. But you take prior confusion: theperson says, "Well, was there any excitement before - when was the firsttime you noticed you had that problem? Oh, yeah, well, that's good. Wasthere any excitement occurred just before that? That's fine. Now, oh, yes,well, you had a fight with your sister. All right now. What did you do toyour sister there? All right. Did you have any withholds from her? Wasthere anybody else you had any withholds from? Oh, yes, you had a withholdfrom your sister. Good. Is there anybody else you had any withholds fromthen? Any more and so forth? Oh, all right. That's fine. That's good. Didyou do anything else in that particular period? Did you do anything toanybody else? Was there anything of this a little earlier? Did you have anyunkind thoughts any earlier about anything or anybody and so forth?" Andyou're just running unkind thoughts, criticalness, withholds, overts, youknow, just - just reach around the basketful and just clean up theconfusion, you see. Just plug away at it and so on. That's almost perfect.You'll find out the present time problem will blow. The somatics will blow.The person's illness will blow. You'll find out the ARC breaks blow and soforth and it opens up the door to a brand-new type of rudiment. It's aSecurity Check type of rudiment. You clean up your rudiments by SecurityCheck and find out you can get away with it much better.You don't have those at this particular instant. They're still indevelopment. It is based on this other lineup, see - the prior confusion toget rid of the out-rudiment. Well, it doesn't violate the goals terminal,and it doesn't leave the pc sitting out in the middle of nowhere.But let me give you just this - this other fact. I've talked about it quitea bit and I've been asked here a question of "What exactly makes the bankstiffen up by taking its attention off the goals terminal? What exactly?Now, I've said that the terminal asserts itself. It's one of the built-inmechanisms of the terminal that if it is ignored, it gets apparent. This isone of the mechanisms of the thing. This is still, however, not answeringthis question because frankly I don't know, frankly. I can give you thegenerality and I can give you the basic law that makes it occur, but theexact mechanics of how this is done actually, practically - practically itjust staggers you trying to figure these things out. Exactly how would thepc with his left hand make his bank go stiffer and heavier and more solidand so forth, so that he notices it on the right hand, you see.It's always this mystery about "How does the pc do it with his left hand -in order to feel it with his right hand and just exactly what goes onhere?" Well, the exact mechanics of the thing - electronically and so forth- I could not tell you at this time. I donn't know.But I can tell you this: that you needn't worry about hidden standardsanymore, because all the basis of all circuitry are to be found on thegoals list of the pc. The basis of the pc's circuits are in his goals andthe type of circuit he will have of various kinds will be found on hisgoals list. So that you get his main goal, you'll find out one line ofcircuits and when you go down and assess another goal, you'll find anotherwhole series of circuits. After you've gotten rid of the first goal, you'llfind another whole series of circuits obeying this other goal. And we havethe basis of circuits for any given individual. And isn't it interestingthat it's different for every other individual, so don't - and there are acouple of billion of them alive at the present moment right here on thisplanet, so don't blame me too excessively for not having noticed they wereall the same mechanism before, but I have just more or less scouted thisout at the moment.If a person has a hidden standard type of circuit that is immediately inaction, running the goal bypasses it. And if he has several types ofcircuits, they will be found somewhere on his goals list, and you will getto those as you clear him. As you get rid of the terminals and the goals,why, the next layer will unpeel. And of course, those that are most activemay come last, but they will surrender the most easily.Well, what - what is the goal of the pc? Well, you'll find this - the firstgoal that you find on the pc - remember you're going to find other goals onthe pc, too, after you've gotten rid of the first goal. It has to get outof the road. But the first goal of the pc will describe the most availableseries of circuits and one of the things you do for the pc when you firstfind his goal is you actually do blow up some of his circuits. So actually,the best way to get at hidden standards is to clear the pc. Interesting,isn't it?But you clear him with his goal and if you bring his goal into the command,his circuits will clear up, which is what's new here. You're gettingcommands now that include the pc's goals as part of the command, which wewill also talk about at some other time.But it's quite amusing if you recognize that the center. . . This is apossibility, you see, that the pc has a goal "never to give the auditor aterminal." They actually will respond as a circuit which goes into actionin the presence of an auditor and then which blanks out the pc's memory ofanything if the auditor asks for the terminal, see?I'm just saying - supposing this were the main goal of the pc, just givingyou a piece of idiocy. Which is - nobody ever had that goal. You get howthat would be? He's got a circuit set up so that you say, "Now, what isyour terminal?" and immediately this thing goes into an occlusion, makeshim stupid and doesn't answer. And he says, "Huh?" You know?All right. That's his goal. His goal expresses itself in a circuit form. Soyou get circuitry goals. "Never to make money anywhere." See? That's hisgoal. Let's say it's "never to make any money at any time, anywhere." Everytime he sees himself in danger of making any money, a little voice talks tohim and tells him that's the wrong thing to do. He just comes close tomaking some money and a little voice says, "Well, that's very bad. That's avery bad thing." You know? "Much more advantageous to sell it than buy itat this particular time," you see? And he gets caught in the stock marketcrash and he's always in financial disasters.You ask this person who has a goal like that if he was in any financialdisasters. "Oh, yes, yes. Lots of them.""Well now, do you have any little voice that tells you what to do in orderto make money?""Oh, well, it's funny you ask this, but I always have a hunch.""Well, how does this hunch express itself?""Well, I get a burning in the - under my jaw here, you know. It sort ofcomes to life, you know? And I just know."All right. You run the person's goal, you find the person's goal and run ita couple of ways and so forth and this somatic will go ke-pshwt! And theregoes the circuit.So we're down to - we're in reaching distance of straight ways to blowcircuits, anyway. So we have made a considerable gain here in the pastcouple of weeks while you've been agonizing around. But I've decided totreat you all nicely. I've decided to be very good to you and so forth. Andas far as possible at the moment, I have you running directly in thedirection of Clear pointed and fired.And it's some possibility that some of you in the next few hundred years -might, as you're auditing might accidentally slip, you know, and disconnectthe E-Meter so the needle will float and something on that order. I'm notgoing to threaten you with being Clear. You don't have to be Clear if youdon't want to be. Really. You can go on being aberrated if you want to beand so forth.The only thing I will say is if you - if you insist utterly on remainingtotally aberrated and so forth, you have approached a period when you'vegot to be very careful. You've got to be very, very, very careful and trynot to do any of the auditing commands because if you do just a few ofthem, it's liable to happen. And so I'm not threatening you and I don'twant to beef up your banks and so forth or anything like that, but I'm veryhappy to - no, I'm very happy, by the way, with the general run of casesfor the first time in many, many, many, many, many weeks. First time thisyear, actually. First happy - where I'm very happy with all the cases whichare running. There's a couple of little question marks hanging over theleft ear of a couple of cases present, but that's all working out and it'sall going very smoothly. But I think you must somehow or anotheraccidentally have applied some of the information you've been getting onthe bulletins. For that - and for that I thank you. I thank you very much.So I hope that - I hope you have a very successful run of it, and - I do. Iwant to see some Clears here in the very near future. So you, too, couldsacrifice yourself toward this ambition or goal. Okay?Thank you.